Psychological Types

[Enigma]

Not even going to bother.

[indra]

Literally blew my mind.

[Kephalos]

It has a strange structure.

It's like two books, the first book doesn't quite develop the theory explicitly but inside interpretations of religious, literary, philosophical and historical texts, and presents the theory as he probably developed it and his sources, and the second book develops the theory without any references, more like an outline.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Where is @Mole and his four star rating?

[Vendrah]

I voted but I forgot which option I vote.

I had finished reading almost totally a few weeks ago. I skipped some boring paragraphs analyzing myths and all that stuff... And I had read chapter X like 3 times.

I didn't vote 5 stars as I remember. I like Jung theory, but I don't like how he writes. I am with those who thinks he is a Ni-dom, because in several parts of the book it is as if he is speaking an ancient language. I am a 100% sure that text would look obscure even on my own native language. But after I had cracked it, things went way more clear. A lot of things that look subjective and "prior to interpretation" are not that subjective, but the writing is really hard to understand and figure. Jung looks quite vague at the beginning, while he is actually making an effort to NOT be vague, while some people after him are vague on purpose... I also don't like the order of the chapters. For anyone starting the reading, I would recommend chapter XI of definitions first, chapter X and than the other chapters. Start reading it from the beginning just makes it more confusing since he starts to talk about stuff before giving clear definitions, to only proper define the types in the end of the book: I think he should introduce the definitions first (chapter XI), the types after that (chapter X) and only then the other parts (liking or not they are bonus, even though it is on these parts where E/I gets deep; Jung E/I is quite deep). Also, some versions have extra additions of articles at the end, and, actually, the articles are worth reading first because some of them works as a good general introduction, that is more straight to the point and more clear.

The obscurity of Jung's writing is partially the reason why people carry many different post-Jung interactions and definitions that starts not to evolve, but to derail it, specially when people ignore any data or evidence so whatever they say will be a truth. A lot of post-Jung stuff went against Jung partially because of a lack of understanding.